Too Right to Write? Leading Law Reviews Accused of Blackballing Conservative Student

There is a disturbing article out this week at the independent student newspaper at the University of Chicago, The Chicago Thinker. The article by Ben Ogilvie addresses growing allegations of ideological prejudice at law reviews that has effectively blackballed conservative students from the prestigious journals. The three top journals cited are Columbia (#8), Northwestern (#10), and Stanford (#1). For full disclosure, I graduated from both University of Chicago and Northwestern University. While at Northwestern, I served as a Chief Articles Editor and the Symposium Editor handling the acceptance and production of all faculty publications. (One of the first pieces that I solicited was by a young academic named Cornell West, his first law review article).

Law review positions are arguably the most sought-after distinctions in law school and are considered a critical, if not essential, qualification for prestigious federal clerkships.

For years, there have been complaints that law reviews have actively discriminated against conservative writers in favor of far left academics. The denial of such publishing opportunities is part of a rising viewpoint intolerance on campuses. As we have previously discussed, faculties have purged most conservatives and libertarians from their ranks. As conservative faculty have retired or resigned, they have been replaced by largely liberal candidates. Many faculties have only a few conservatives or Republicans left. I have seen extraordinarily talented conservative academics who have faced closed doors across the country in seeking appointments. They are often forced to go into private practice or take positions at lower-ranked schools. Those who secure positions often complain that they face hostile treatment if they object to DEI and other policies on ideological grounds.

If young professors are open about their ideology and somehow secure an academic position, they then face difficulties getting published. Indeed, there have been calls for new journals to give the dwindling number of conservative faculty some outlet for their scholarship. Publications are needed for tenure and advancement. The hostile reception at top journals makes it very difficult for young libertarian or conservative faculty to advance.

The Chicago Thinker details how law reviews have added diversity statements and background reviews as part of their selection process.

“These statements are completely open-ended, but they are still generally assigned a number grade—as if “diversity” were somehow quantifiable. The vagueness and unquantifiable nature of “diversity” in real life, however, creates opportunities for abuse. For instance, the managers of the Columbia Law Review allegedly use applicants’ diversity statements to ferret out students who are members of the Federalist Society (FedSoc), a conservative legal organization widely hated by liberals for, among other things, its role in overturning Roe v. Wade.”

The newspaper documents how Federalist Society members appear the most targeted. Top students who went on to secure leading clerkships were allegedly blocked from positions on the law reviews.

The newspaper also accused journals like the Columbia Law Review of practicing racial discrimination by specifying race as a criteria or factor in admission. It is also common for journals to ask authors to identify their race and sexual identity to give greater opportunities to minority authors. There is a common view that the best chance for publication comes with articles alleging systemic racism or attacking core values like free speech. At the same time, it is rare to see articles espousing textualist interpretations or challenging diversity rationales. Indeed, we have seen authors denied publication even after acceptance when their articles challenged such viewpoints.

The reduction of conservative student editors not only means that fewer conservative student notes are published, but faculty publications are selected by a largely liberal editorial staff.

This bias in publications is further magnified when students seek faculty review of submissions. With few conservatives or moderates left on many faculties, conservative authors can expect to be spiked or damned with faint praise from such faculty reviews. Indeed, even faculty members inclined to recommend a conservative submission may fear personal and professional consequences in being associated with a controversial conservative or libertarian publication.

It is hardly surprising to see the same intolerance on law reviews that have been manifested on campuses for years. The bias in selection of these positions not only impacts the diversity of opinion in leading journals but sharply limits the advancement of both law students and young law faculty. Law reviews have become part of the academic echo chamber where viewpoints range generally from the left to the far left. With most faculty and most publications echoing these viewpoints, it forces even moderate faculty to the perceived extremes of intellectual discussions.

One can argue that correlation does not mean causation in the lack of Federalist Society members or openly conservative students. The process of journal selections remains somewhat opaque and it is hard to analyze data that is not released by these schools.  Yet, these are long-standing objections to the overwhelming ideological bent of journals.

Ironically, the most obvious explanation is that there are relatively few conservative or libertarian faculty today, so it is understandable that most publications will reflect the liberal makeup of most faculties. It becomes a circular, chicken-or-the-egg debate. In truth, the problem is the coalescing of all of these factors that have been building for years.

I loved my time at Northwestern University Law Review. It was one of the most intellectually rewarding chapters in my education. We even implemented a total blind read system to remove any information about the author, their positions, or their status. We sought to judge works entirely on their merits and selected pieces from across the ideological spectrum. We also had a faculty that was remarkably diverse and tolerant.

The loss of that vibrant intellectual environment remains one of the saddest developments of my lifetime. I have watched my profession become intolerant and orthodox in every aspect of academia. We reached a tipping point a couple decades ago where ideological rigidity seemed to take hold of our schools as professors sought to replicate their own values in hiring, promotion, and administrative decisions. It is not surprising that our student journals reflect the same bias and intolerance.

There is little evidence that the controlling majority of law faculties will change this culture of intolerance. While that culture denies the very core of our intellectual mission, it serves to support the viewpoints (and publication opportunities) of most faculty members. It is not their problem.


179 thoughts on “Too Right to Write? Leading Law Reviews Accused of Blackballing Conservative Student”

  1. Weiss can’t legally hold the position.
    Also, he has been caught lying, and authored that Hunter plea deal that has never been offered to anyone before

  2. Friday afternoon, Florida Congressman Greg Steube drops the hammer on Biden’s harlotry of greed, envy, pride and lies. Lets see how DOJ Jack Smith tries to out-do these new articles of impeachment because that is what Merrick Garland’s Politburo always does: change the subject


    “U.S. Rep. Greg Steube Files Articles of Impeachment Against Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., President of the United States, For High Crimes and Misdemeanors

    WASHINGTON — U.S. Representative Greg Steube (R-Fla.) today filed articles of impeachment against Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    “It’s long past time to impeach Joe Biden,” said Rep. Steube. “He has undermined the integrity of his office, brought disrepute on the Presidency, betrayed his trust as President, and acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice at the expense of America’s citizens. The evidence continues to mount by the day – the Biden Crime Family has personally profited off Joe’s government positions through bribery, threats, and fraud. Joe Biden must not be allowed to continue to sit in the White House, selling out our country.”

    The articles of impeachment include:

  3. Selected Babylon Bee headlines

    • Chicago mayor says that due to negative connotations we should stop using the word ‘Chicago’
    • White House says Bidenomics so successful the average American has twice as many jobs as they had 2 years ago
    • AI transformed into illiterate moron after just three hours watching CNN
    • Democrats hire professional puppeteer to continue operating Diane Feinstein
    • With Colbert off the air dancing vaccines forced to perform at children’s birthday parties
    • Trump indicted for Hawaii wildfire
    • Progressive church repents of its incandescent bulb use
    • Oakland mayor asks residents to blow air horn once to announce stabbing, twice for shooting
    • Celebrity bravely criticizes woke activists moments before apologizing to them
    • FBI sends in heavily armed tactical team to unscrew incandescent light bulb
    • Report: record number of people following their hearts
    • Backup dancers say they are tired of living in Lizzo’s shadow
    • Tiny Texas border town really sorry to hear about NYC struggling with a few thousand migrants
    • Massachusetts starting to wonder if Trump was onto something with that whole ‘build the wall’ thing
    • Trump indicted for mocking US women’s soccer

  4. “Turley calls out delays in Hunter Biden special counsel appointment: ‘Statute of limitations has run’
    Special counsel appointment ‘a chilling moment’ for President Biden’s son, says Turley”

    – Fox News

    JONATHAN TURLEY: I was not surprised, but I was not nearly as delighted as I would have been two years ago when many of us were calling for this appointment. They waited for the appointment of a special counsel after the statute of limitations has run on critical crimes, like the tax violations in 2014, 2015. They waited until Weiss himself was accused of slowing or suppressing efforts. At least the whistleblower suggested that he was not able to pursue cases and didn’t aggressively push back on that. So there’s going to be a lot of questions here if this is occurring as Congress is moving aggressively to pursue some of these issues. This new status can certainly slow that process down.

  5. “Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan cannot be trusted to give Trump his right to a fair trial, Dershowitz continued.”

    Granddad was at Northwestern as Dr Loyal Davis, Mrs Reagan’s stepfather, taught him medicine, Jonathan. Small world.

    Pro se, my judge refused to allow me to respond to the defense attorney’s claim that I was out-of-control. The punk accused me of emailing all these government officials, like I was harassing them and him. Judge called me a criminal. I tried to voice my disagreement,
    but he threatened to incarcerate me.

    There was no way to complain about his behavior on the Judicial Complaint form. My country tis of thee. Our courts are a bad joke. Lawyers and judges have rigged the playing field to make themselves extraordinarily wealthy and powerful, and practically immune from any attempt to discipline their asses.

      1. the above comment is a sterling example of shallow thinking, undeveloped intellect, a sophomoric petulance.

        SCOTUS voted to support slavery in Dred Scott decision, 7-2, and the 2 dissenters wanted to dismiss the case for lack of standing by Scott

        because stupid thinking is what shallow thinkers do best but trolls best of all.

        your handlers are not sending their best

        1. Juan R Sanchez received unanimous approval, too, thanks to Arlen Specter’s commitment to watching his darling little boy, Shannon, winning multi million dollar lawsuits, who nominated the filthy pig.

          1. The latest SCOTUS appointee can not define the word “woman” but lectures Americans about medical science when it comes to deaths of blacks. Stop while you are drowning in stupidity because your next step will be that of irrelevance on an anonymous blog


      – J,D. Outlaw

      You don’t say!!!

      The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.

      The law:

      – Secession is not prohibited or otherwise precluded by the Constitution, is fully constitutional, and is what the Founders availed themselves of against Great Britain in 1776. Every act by Lincoln and his successors subsequent to Lincoln’s unconstitutional denial of secession was, is and remains unconstitutional, invalid and illegitimate to this day, including the improperly ratified “Reconstruction Amendments” which were forced on America under the duress of brutal post-unconstitutional-war military occupation and oppression. Criminality shall not beget legality.

      – The legal status of slaves changed from “property” to “illegal alien” under extant immigration law on January 1, 1863, requiring immediate “compassionate repatriation,” aka deportation, for people who “may [not] be admitted to become a citizen.”

      – The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

      – Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.

      – Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.

      The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.

  6. OT

    “Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that right is not absolute.”

    – U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan

    In other words, Tanya has the power to configure, direct, command and dictate the form and content of the speech of once-free Americans.

    I don’t think so, Tanya; I don’t find that in American fundamental law.

    Of course, the freedom of speech is clearly, manifestly and in particular provided, and not qualified, by the Constitution, and is, therefore, absolute.

    That Tanya does not like any particular speech of any particular citizen does not bear.

    Tanya has unfounded respect for her partial, subjective and biased personal opinion, and her misperception of her personal power.

    Tanya has absolutely no respect for superior and incontrovertible, fundamental law.

    Tanya has no authority to amend the Constitution by qualifying and diminishing the absolute freedom of speech of every U.S. citizen.

    Tanya must be impeached, convicted, stripped of her title and position, removed from the courtroom, and thrown in prison for nullifying and attempting to amend the Constitution outside of the prescribed constitutional process, subversion of the U.S Constitution, usurpation of power, abuse of power, treason et al.

    1. According to Bigot George, perjury is legal, because the right of free speech is absolute.
      According to Bigot George, defamation is legal, because the right of free speech is absolute.

      Bigot George doesn’t understand the law very well. All rights have limitations, and his personal beliefs about it do not determine the law.

      1. Law is entitlement of, for, and to repression of others by those too weak and too stupid to be in harmony with each other in a logically harmonious mutualistic society. Thus we get people like you and I and Trump, Turley, Biden, etc. trying to cope with each other’s distractive behaviors using Law to gain an advantage.

      2. Thank you for your earnest concession; you have my unfeigned condolences.

        Ad hominem is for those who have lost the day and exhausted their meager capacity and resources.

        Anonymity is for dastardly milquetoasts.

        Freedom of speech is absolute.

        Causing property damage, bodily injury, and/or perpetrating perjury are illegal and actionable.

        (Remember when Hillary availed herself of her absolute freedom of speech in e-mails, proceeding to commit perjury, destroy evidence and obstruct justice – she really got in trouble, huh? Don’t you just love the law and judicial branch? Sarc/on).

  7. OT:

    Garland has announced that David Weiss is now a Special Counsel in the Hunter Biden investigation.

    1. Yes Weiss named special counsel

      Despite the Special Counsel legislation stipulates that the Special Counsel MUST be a person outside the Federal Government.

      The cover up and corruption just went into high gear.

      1. So you want a Special Counsel who wasn’t appointed to his government position by Trump. OK.

        1. Weiss was originally appointed to the Hunter investigation to kill it. He almost succeeded. Let the tax charge toll, Then created a plea deal so corrupt the Judge was forced to deny the deal.
          Today with the appointment of special counsel, Weiss has not yet indicted Hunter. still letting the clock tick down on other charges.
          Weiss is still on the job protecting the Biden Family Crime syndicate.

            1. Whether or not Weiss was appointed to “kill the Hunter Biden investigation”, the fact is that he did so, esp. by allowing the SOL to run on the serious tax charges. He also failed to prosecute him on the felony gun charge, giving him the chance to make a diversionary plea. He also failed to indict him on the FARA violation. He is just the man for the job of H B special counsel – in the world of AG Garland.

        1. Durham was out at the end of Trumps term. So he did all of his work as a special counsel with no govt entanglements.

          Today Garland, made a special point to say Weiss was still the States US Attorney. In direct violation of the controlling Statute. Laws are for little people. For sure not a Democrat appointed Attorney General.

          1. Durham wasn’t out at the end of Trump’s term, and more to the point, he was working for the government when he was appointed.

            “In direct violation of the controlling Statute.”


            The AG can also appoint a Special Counsel under 28.USC 510, which doesn’t require that the person be outside the government.

      2. You didn’t read far enough.

        28 CFR § 600.10 No creation of rights.
        The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative.

  8. It’s not just the denial or impingement upon law student writers; -it’s also that those students who ARE granted publication often learn their trade from the most egregious selective-fact mentors (think Laurence Tribe), as well as the overwhelmingly-left-leaning national journalism field in general.

    Just look at the BREAKING NEWS this morning. Here are two ACTUAL headlines published nearly simultaneously from two different news sources covering the exact same event:

    “Judge Rules Trump Can Share Some Evidence Publicly.”
    “Trump Judge Sets Limits on What Trump Can Publicly Share.”

    (I’ll let you guess which news source published which headline.)

    And do you think there is any coincidence to the sudden announcement, two hours later/just now EST) that Garland is appointing David Weiss as Special Counsel to look into Hunter Biden? Is the administration trying to jump the gun before Trump’s team releases either some harmful evidence about Biden, or some exculpatory evidence for Trump?

    1. “In addition, the more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case which could taint the jury pool … the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly … I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.”

      1. oh, you don’t have to worry about the government, as “party” making any inflammatory statements–that will be done by its proxies, the media giants. Oh, and you also don’t have to worry about your comments having any effect on anyone…

    2. Precisely. Tautology, as John Say would say. And that was my point, which apparently went over your head.
      I was referring to (if you go back and try to read more comprehensively) the STYLE of media headline creations that imply different things.The astute reader already knows that Trump’s attorneys only asked the court for permission to release a narrow subset, i.e., “selective” non-sensitive information. The second headline is intended to imply that Trump only got SOME of what he asked for….
      Try again . Thanks anyway.

      1. Trump *did* only get some of what he asked for. Did you read their redline along with live-tweeting of the hearing?

        1. The court was preemptively proscribing that. It had nothing to do with what Trump’s counsel asked for. You would be so laughably easy to squash in court.

          1. you should know how to read an Order. The Order does not identify what was denied, and speaks entirely to “sensitive material.” As far as you know, the “denial” may have been limited toward something Trump’s counsel WANTED to protect, but the Court so denied.. YOU don’t know. geez.

            1. The protective order — in combination with the government’s and defendant’s proposals for the protective order — DOES tell what was denied. Learn how to read all of the relevant material. You do know that the government’s and defendant’s proposals for the protective order were also public, right?

              1. ANY trial attorney knows that only what is is expressly ordered or specifically addressed in the order is what counts, i.e. the four corners. The proposals of both parties are no longer relevant. I could sue my neighbor for loss of lateral support along the property line. and also request that the court prohibit the neighbor’s dog from urinating on my property. The court order only addresses the lateral support. Duh.

        2. “Trump *did* only get some of what he asked for. Did you read their redline along with live-tweeting of the hearing?”

          Is it possible for you EVER to say specifically what you mean ?

          What is it that you beleive Trump got that he was not permitted ?

          What is it that you beleive what you have demanded that others read will prove ?

          Why should I or anyone else go to significant effort to chase down something you can not even be bothered to clearly state ?

          One of the first tests of law and logic is to describe the ACTUAL facts without bias or spin. If you can not manage that
          and while we are all bad at that the left is SELF EVIDENTLY completely abysmal, the rest of your argument is meaningless.

    3. It is time for SCOTUS to make it absolutely clear that judges do NOT have the power to restrict the first amendment rights of those who are not before the courts BY CHOICE.

      Unfortunately though I beleive it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS will allow judges to gag Trump in the midst of an election, I do not trust them to make the correct Bright Line distinction regarding the power of the courts to restrict free speech.

      Generally we giver Judges far too much power that goes beyond their courtrooms.

  9. Wiese, now appointed Special Counsel, in the HUNTER Biden investigation. NOT JOE BIDEN. Joe has been protected…AGAIN… from DoJ investigation.

    Not a big surprise, Since the IRS whistle blowers exposed Wiese as aiding in the Biden coverup.

    Corruption marches on.

    1. This will limit the Scope of Congress investigatory actions. And protects Wiese from answering questions in front of Congress.

      1. iowan2: A very good and prescient comment by you, and soooo true.
        I was about to write a recent timeline on Weiss but decided it was too OT for this article–then I read your comment.
        For those not following Weiss’s role:
        (1) May 26, 2023, Shapley and Ziegler testify that Weiss told them and several others in the room that he was not given authority to look into some pressing issues regarding Hunter Biden’s business dealings, etc. He allegedly said, “I am not the deciding party” on charges to be filed against Hunter, and also told them that he was denied the jurisdictional authority to file charges, or be granted special counsel status, and had to go through Biden-appointed USDA.
        (2) It hits the news. (Well, on some networks…..not MSM)
        (3) Two weeks later, @ June 7?, Weiss sends letter to Congress controverting this, and saying he was given “ultimate authority.” Meanwhile, the statute of limitation expires on Hunter’s tax issues and tangential issues.
        (4) DOJ announces that Weiss will be allowed to be interviewed later “in the fall (autumn).”
        (4) Trump threatens to reveal some evidence pointing to, inter alia, DOJ’s machinations.
        (5) Two hours after DOJ loses part of its motion to protect information,Garland announces Weiss as special counsel.
        This now means that Weiss will be protected from having to reveal anything of import, because it will now be protected as part of an “ongoing investigation.”
        Jonathan Turley just gave one of his best best interviews ever on this about an hour ago (on DOJ’s anathema, Fox News)

        1. Lin,
          Great timeline. Thank you for pointing out how the Biden admin has take the US to banana republic status yet again.
          I fully expect Trump to win in 2024, the Biden admin declare some kind of emergency, wipe away the Constitution and Congress, appear in the rose garden in a neon florescent green uniform with a rack of medals that are totally made up and announce himself as Colonel Bidenkadafay and el Presidente for life.

          1. “I fully expect Trump to win in 2024, “

            Upstate, I wish I had your confidence. I don’t think it makes a difference which major candidate runs on the Republican ticket. There is a good chance the people have lost control over their government. The left cannot afford to lose this election, and I believe will do everything in their power to obstruct the process. Look what they did with Covid. I can only hope that the people’s grasp of their government is and remains existent till the next election, where we need not only a President but a Senate and House, absent those who are not loyal to America’s Constitution and way of life.

            1. S. Meyer,
              My comment was mostly tongue in cheek, I do think you are right when you say the left will do everything they can to obstruct the process. Those in power in the Biden admin have too much to loose, even if it meant destroying the country. Which they seem willing to do.
              Again, my comment was tongue in cheek, on the other side I could see the Biden admin doing something like that to maintain power.

  10. 2 Timothy 3:1-5 ESV
    But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

  11. While most of the comments below seem to refer to law schools the same general problems have struck the university as a whole — administration particularly and even the hard sciences and engineering. I spent half my career in industry and the last half in academia. Since my retirement I have learned to nearly despise academia. As an ex-colleague of mine says when I speak to him of the need to resist these bad trends he says “Why do you care? Let the dopes learn the hard way.”

    Letting things continue to the point of ruin seems to me a bad option that isn’t even guaranteed to work. Perhaps Turley can spend a column sometime outlining strategies for reform rather than documenting the decay.

    1. Kevin T Kilty,
      As someone who has been in both industry and academia, how would you reform academia?
      No sarc implied, honest question.

      1. When it comes to state-funded schools it will probably require the intervention of legislatures. Think about the caterwauling that would follow. Step one would be to defund much of the administration. Until that oppressive and cowardly bloat is reduced nothing else will matter.

        Not only was I an academic and industry advisor, I was a college trustee for a time as well; I saw the horrid effect of HR, administrative bloat, hiring of poorly qualified faculty and administration, promulgation of silly or even pernicious rules, diversity and civility initiatives, and so forth first hand. I figured we could accomplish our mission with 80% of the funding. Cutting funds will help focus minds.

        This may seem trivial, but get rid of the Ed. D. degree. It’s a license for mediocrity in every way imaginable and holders of this degree are taking over higher ed.

        1. Christopher Rufo and others recently appointed as trustees of New College in Florida are showing how to do a thorough reform. These are early days and it’s too early to know if they will succeed. But they are making big changes, including replacing leadership, firing all DEI administrators and eliminating the gender studies department.

          1. Daniel,

            Unrelated: the other day, you asked the question “has the crime of fraud on the US ever been applied to a challenge to a recorded election result?,” and I responded that I don’t know. But I realized later that the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers have both been charged with — and convicted of — ConFraudUS (18 U.S.C. § 371) related to J6, so that’s a related application, though distinct.

          2. You’ve brought up a good point. The Trustees should be the point at which reform would occur. Unfortunately trustees are unable to muster the courage or intellect/experience to do the job. They tend to view the position as a sinecure rather than a disposable position meant to allow boldness in problem solving and protecting the public’s interests. Peter Drucker wrote about the problems with governing boards a long time ago.

            In my case I was elected by the public, but there are boards appointed, by governors usually, and if you really want to see an awful composition of a governing board have a look at what goes on at MIT — seriously. At any rate the board tends to be composed of people who know almost nothing about education, especially higher education, and then are lead around by a strong and committed college president and lied to repeatedly. Instead of being boss of said president they become lapdogs. And to make matters worse, board members attend board training that seeks to instill timidity and mediocrity. A board should not micromanage, but at the same time they shouldn’t allow themselves to become lackies to their employee or be lied to repeatedly by administrators.

            This is why I say legislatures, or more broadly the sources of funding, have to become involved.

              1. The Founders ended student loans in 1789 in Article 1, Section 8.

                Congress has the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense and general Welfare, not individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity.

                Congress cannot tax for or regulate student loans, and Congress cannot “forgive” student loans.

                Where the —- is the judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, the Justices of which swore an oath to “support” the literal, manifest tenor of the Constitution?

                The only items that constitute general, all or the whole Welfare are roads, water, sewer, electricity, trash collection, etc.

                Social security and Medicare are ONLY for people over 65, a very individual, specific, particular and small subset of the general population.

              2. Administrators are ingenious at funding what they want, out of monies needed to perform the college mission, without it being obvious. Thus, legislatures have to direct the funds specifically.

      2. One possible strategy is a future youth rebellion against leftist conformism and orthodoxy. Conservative adults cannot orchestrate one, but we can nurture independent and critical thinking in our children and grandchildren of a post-racial nature (race/ethnicity is viewed as inconsequential, but merit and excellence is sought after and prized in others.)

        That’s a realistic undertaking. If liberals bring up their children to be timid, risk-averse, race-essentialist and conformist, and conservatives bring up theirs to be ambitious, fair-minded, post-racial, independent-minded futurists, how do you imagine leadership will evolve 20 years from now?

        Project our values and expectations into the future — that is the key to success. Don’t allow negative thinking (militancy) overtake our focus.

        1. ” If liberals bring up their children to be timid, risk-averse, race-essentialist and conformist, and conservatives bring up theirs to be ambitious, fair-minded, post-racial, independent-minded futurists, how do you imagine leadership will evolve 20 years from now?”

          I imagine the children of those today will be just as afraid tomorrow so you have condemned them to whatever ruler has garnered the most power. Fighting for one’s rights doesn’t necessarily mean violent action, though the tactic of waiting for one’s children to do something will leave that as the only course of action.

    2. It WOULD be interesting if Turley would spend some time talking to engineering faculty to see if or how the politics of the day have been altering engineering or science course work. When I studied engineering (early-mid 1970s), there was no political infiltration that I could detect. But then, I was very young and wasn’t looking for any political infiltration of the engineering school, as the course work consumed virtually all of my time. Things might be different today, both from a student and faculty perspective.

      After engineering school, I went on to study architectural design, where there was significant social infiltration into the course work. But that’s to be expected due to the intersection of architectural design and social needs. Buildings, after all, directly serve the ever-changing needs of people — including their social needs — whereas engineered devices service more-immediate purely-physical purposes. So I suppose it would be the potential infiltration of socio-political issues in engineering schools that would be the more-interesting case study.

      Anyway, until you mentioned it, I don’t recall whether it’s ever occurred to me to wonder whether Professor Turley has ever even had any meaningful contact with any but law or political faculty.

  12. “The bias in selection of these positions not only impacts the diversity of opinion in leading journals but sharply limits the advancement of both law students and young law faculty.” This is exactly what the far left’s plan is to prevent anybody with different point of view from advancing just like Stalin, Mao, Castro…

    1. To Roger Osborne,

      You are spot on. Ten years ago I would have never predicted I would hold these views about what is now happening in American institutions but here we are. Just think of what happened at Stanford where the mob cancelled a sitting judge from speaking; all encouraged by the DEI administrator. We are in troubled times and the progressives are correct that what is happening is similar to the 1930s, Only they have the wrong country Stalin’s USSR was well ahead of Hitler’s Germany in destroying freedom of speech and all other liberties. Stalin and Mao are the models for these thugs

  13. I still do not know how Prof.Turley is able to keep up his heroic defense of free from his perch at GWU without facing dismissal pressures from activists.

  14. OT — Not

    “[F]aculties have purged most conservatives and libertarians from their ranks. (JT)

    “Works that did not contribute to the building of socialism were banned. Lenin had seen the need for increasing revolutionary consciousness in workers. Stalin now asserted that art should not merely serve society, but do so in a way determined by the party and its megalomaniacal plans for transforming society. As a result, artists and intellectuals as well as political figures became victims of the Great Terror of the 1930s.” (

  15. “The loss of that vibrant intellectual environment remains one of the saddest developments of my lifetime.”

    Your words are understood, but a bit late, for the horses are now out of the corral leaving devastation to our future judicial system.

    Words may have sufficed in earlier days, but now one has to do what one tried to avoid, fight.

    1. Fight? If not with persuasive thinking and interaction (words), with what? Guns?….if so, you are naive and fantasy-driven.

      That kind of talk further discredits “conservative” influence. If we cannot subdue militancy among progressives with humor, mockery and meritocratic debate, attention to the way children are being raised and taught, and other peaceful means, what does that say about our creativity, commitment and intellectual force?

      Do everyone a big favor, and stop associating conservative values with violent coercion as a tool of political competition. Because if you keep it up, it will have the exact OPPOSITE impact your reptilian instincts think it will, namely strengthening opponents, not getting them to back down.

      1. Seems to me it is the leftist are the ones ratcheting up the rhetoric up to the line of violence.

      2. “Fight? If not with persuasive thinking and interaction (words), with what? Guns?….if so, you are naive and fantasy-driven.”

        To an intellectual, fighting does not mean guns, though it can. It does mean the ability to discourage others and protect oneself from those trying to take rights away.

        Perhaps you were not thinking clearly and missed the point. The fight with words and intellect should have occurred when conservatives were strong and could exert substantial intellectual pressure. Maybe you lack understanding of such actions.

        Turley has always been one step behind. That might be good or bad. I will not judge Turley, but had he acted more intensely decades ago with others, perhaps our present situation would be different. Today he is muzzled because he has a family to support and a career, so I support his position wherever he is. He is good for society.

        “That kind of talk further discredits “conservative” influence.”

        No, it discredits your intellectual capabilities. You try to promote vague ideas, and here you failed miserably.

        Have I ever advocated taking up arms? No, however, I support preparedness because that is the best way of preventing others from taking up arms against me.

        “Do everyone a big favor, and stop associating conservative values with violent coercion as a tool of political competition. Because if you keep it up, it will have the exact OPPOSITE impact your reptilian instincts think it will, namely strengthening opponents, not getting them to back down.”

        I do not associate conservative/ libertarian values with violence, but I believe in protecting my natural rights, something you lost track of long ago. Tell your stories to what you call reptilians, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. They defended their liberty with honor and intelligence. You show that you are only willing to reveal your back.

  16. There will be no rule of law in a generation or two if more of us do not start caring. We need to do more than feel sad about the development: at the least, stop sending your kids, and stop sending your money. I honestly believe that’s part of the reason dems push for federal college so hard: if leftist governments are in charge, funding and staffing will never come into question again, and we are close to that point (we’ve already seen it play out fully in Silicon Valley). It’s a hop, skip, and a jump from there to literal indoctrination centers.

    Rigor is already dead. Stop sending your kids. The professions that have been compromised (and it’s most of them. This comment doesn’t even address issues of nepotism, which is just as bad) will only be reformed if they are de-peopled. If we want to be really bold, we need to start putting our money where our mouths are and create alternatives. Something like Hillsdale is nice, but expensive, and rightly or wrongly, a turn-off to many for their overt conservatism and therefore not particularly influential. Wish that sort of thing didn’t matter, but it does in this modern quagmire.

    1. ” I honestly believe that’s part of the reason dems push for federal college so hard: if leftist governments are in charge,”

      James, you need not say that apologetically. It is true.

      “Something like Hillsdale is nice, but expensive,”

      Colleges like Hillsdale are few and far between while the others are plentiful, over 5,000. It is expensive but they have scholarships. My understanding is they are trying to alter curriculums for grade school and starting some of their own.

  17. Professor Turley, you ride ever higher in my estimation. How you survived a degree from Northwestern without your brain being destroyed is a testament to your intellectual resilience.

    I know two other Northwestern grads, and I’m sad to report they’re devoid of all human agency. The zombies walk among us 🧟🧟‍♂️🧟‍♀️

    1. How true that is. Hitler moved pretty fast to purge opposition journalists, but it took Mussolini a little longer. About 1935, the purge of Jewish journalists began. By the time the first Laws in Defense of Race were promulgated in September 1938, there were no Italian journalists left to oppose the heinous laws that in many cases were more onerous than the Nuremberg Laws.

Leave a Reply